[paxys]

Nvidia's annual revenue in 2024 was $60B. In comparison, Apple made $391B. Microsoft made $245B. Amazon made $575B. Google made $278B. And Nvidia is worth more than all of them. You'd have to go very far down the list to find a company with a comparable ratio of revenue or income to market cap as Nvidia.

[nl]

Nvidia's revenue growth rate was 94% and income growth rate was 109% for the Oct 2024 quarter. This compares to Apple's 6% and -35%.

Nvidia is growing profits faster than income.

Nvidia's net profit margin is 55% (vs Apple 15%) and they have an operating income of $21B vs Apple's $29.5

These are some pretty impressive financial results - those growth rates are the reason people are bullish on it.

[paxys]

Yes revenue has grown xx% in the last quarter and year, but the stock is valued as if it will keep growing at that rate for years to come and no one will challenge them. That is the definition of a bubble.

How sound is the investment thesis when a bunch of online discussions about a technical paper on a new model can cause a 20% overnight selloff? Does Apple drop 20% when Samsung announces a new phone?

[hyperpape]

> the stock is valued as if it will keep growing at that rate for years to come and no one will challenge them.

If it were valued that way, the P/E would be over 100.

Feel free to say Nvidia is overvalued, but you have to get the financials right.

[tempeler]

People do not understand. If you want to make money in the stock market, find growing companies. Pricing of the growing companies is different from others. Since it is not clear when the growth will end, there is a high probability that there will be extreme things in pricing. Since they are market leadership and can lead the price. Don't compare growing companies with others. That's a big fallacy. Their price always overshooted. I don't have any investments in Nvidia, but reality is that. This is why economists always talk about growth.

[amluto]

One might argue that very high margins could be a bad sign. If you assume that Apple is efficient at being Apple, then there is not a whole lot of room for someone else to undercut them at similar cost of goods sold. But there is a lot of room to undercut Nvidia with similar COGS — Nvidia is doing well because it’s difficult to compete for various reasons, not that it’s expensive to compete.

[segasaturn]

That's the thing. Nvidia's future growth has been potentially kneecapped by R1's leaps in efficiency.

[chpatrick]

I don't see it, instead of 100 GPUs running the AIs we have today, we'll have 100 GPUs running the AI of the future. NVIDIA wins either way. It won't be 50 GPUs running the AI of today.

[pertymcpert]

All other things being equal, less demand means lower profits. Even if demand still outstrips supply, it's still less demand expected than a month ago.

[chpatrick]

If the demand is for reaching AGI then we'll still need all the GPUs NVIDIA can sell, we'll just get there faster thanks to DeepSeek.

[CamperBob2]

Bearish argument: "How can we adapt you to run on 8,000,000 NVidia GPUs instead of 80,000,000?"

That probably won't be the first question we ask AGI if/when we ever get there, but it will be near the top of the list.

[amazingamazing]

to be fair, there's no way these rates will be sustained for a decade.

[nl]

What does "to be fair" mean in this context? There's nothing fair or even an alternative point of view. Even the most bullish NVidia investor would agree with this statement.

No one expects this growth to be sustained for a decade. Companies aren't prices based on hypothetical growth rates in 10 years time.

[numba888]

P/E ratio is better indicator. Price/Earnings. NVidia: 46, Microsoft: 35, Apple: 34, Amazon: 50.

As you see NVidia doesn't stand out much, it's even lower than Amazon.

[paxys]

You are sharing numbers after the drop. The p/e was 60 yesterday.

[numba888]

anyway it's not dramatic. vs 50 for Amazon. $147 was close to historical max for NVidia. Not fair either. last month in was less than $140 average, just estimate.

[epicureanideal]

All of them are overvalued compared to historical average ratios.

And NVDA’s P/E benefits from very recent huge spending that may not continue.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

They have higher growth rates than average.

Look at their PEG ratios.

[slashdev]

Stock market valuations are not about current revenue. That’s just a fundamental disconnect from how the financial markets work.

In theory it’s more about forward profits per share, taking into account growth over many years. And Nvidia is growing faster than any company with that much revenue.

Obviously the future is hard to predict, which leaves a lot of wiggle room.

But I say in theory, because in practice it’s more about global liquidity. It has a lot to do with passive investing being so dominant and money flows.

Money printer goes brrr and stonks go up.

That is not the only thing that matters, but it seems to be the main thing.

If it were really about future profits most of these companies would long since be uninvestable. The valuations are too high to expect a positive ROI.